Luxembourg Succession

[Prinsara]

I thought Louis renounced his rights specifically so he would not have one child in the line of succession and one child ineligible?

I realize the revision was done with more than one family in mind, but if Noah really has been reinstated, it seems like a bit of a shame, somehow.

 

[Somebody]

I thought Louis renounced his rights specifically so he would not have one child in the line of succession and one child ineligible?

I realize the revision was done with more than one family in mind, but if Noah really has been reinstated, it seems like a bit of a shame, somehow.

I would also consider that a mistake (and undesirable consequence of this new constitution). I see how someone cannot renounce for living descendants (for example, in Norway, if Märtha Louise would request to be removed from the line of succession, her daughters shouldn't be impacted), however, for future descendants, it would make more sense to me that once someone is no longer in line, any descendants born after that renunciation shouldn't be in line either.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I thought Louis renounced his rights specifically so he would not have one child in the line of succession and one child ineligible?

I am fairly certain that was just uninformed speculation by people who were unaware that Luxembourg's Civil Code (just like that of Monaco, which for some reason many more people seem to be aware of) legitimates children upon the subsequent marriage of their parents.

The old and new Nassau house laws (at least those which are published online) did not exclude children who were born out of wedlock and legitimated by their parents' subsequent marriage, as far as I can tell. (Edited to correct: The original wording of the 1907 bylaw did require birth from a marriage in conformity with the house rules, but this wording was removed in the 2012 revision.)

According to Luxarazzi, the publicly given reason for Louis's renunciation was to make it easier to pursue his business career. He apparently followed the example of his uncle Jean, who also officially renounced the throne for the sake of his business career, coincidentally not long after having a child out of wedlock.

When Prince Jean renounced his rights he stated that he did so in order to make it easier to pursue his business career. He did not mention his daughter (who few knew about) or his eventual marriage to Helene. This is the same "excuse" that Prince Louis used when he did the same before his marriage to Princess Tessy. I'll leave it to you to decide if you feel if it is the real reason behind those actions.

 

[Mbruno]

I agree with the others that Maria Teresa would definitely NOT be the better choice to serve as regent. Personally, I am fine with limiting the role of representing the grand duke (either as regent or lieutenant-representative to those in line to the throne) given that the position of grand duke itself is also limited to that group of people.

I believe that, under previous rules, the role of lieutenant-representative was already restricted to blood relatives of the Grand Duke, so the novelty is really in the extension of that restriction to the regency.

Incidentally, the monarch's consort cannot serve as regent either in the United Kingdom under the Regency Act 1937. Exceptions like the Duke of Edinburgh, who became a possible regent while Prince Charles was underage, were made by special, separate legislation that applied only to him and not to future consorts. The consort may be appointed a counsellor of state though.

That contrasts, for example, with the constitutional position in Spain, where there is a long tradition, dating back to the constitutions of 1845 and 1876 and reaffirmed in the constitution of 1978, that the monarch's mother is the default regent for an underage monarch whose father, the former King, is deceased and, furthermore, that the queen consort is the default regent in case the reigning King is incapacitated and the heir to the throne, being her son or daughter, is under 18.

My understanding is that other kingdoms like the Netherlands deal with the issue of the regency by special legislation on a case-by-case basis, rather than having an enshrined constitutional rule of general application, which is probably wiser. Of course the UK, not having a written constitution and having the flexibility to change the regency law at any time, doesn't have to worry about the inflexibility of rules of general application such as those found in the Regency Act 1937.

In that sense, I am not sure that the "constitutionalization" of the regency rules in Luxembourg, permanently excluding the monarch's consort from that role, is a good move. GD Maria Teresa may have her flaws, but HGD Stéphanie for example would be more than qualified to serve as regent.

 

[tommy100]

Would it no be possible for a similar thing as happened in the UK to happen in Luxembourg and a specific act /legislation be created to make Stephanie regent if it was thought the best thing to do at the time? I haven't seen the exact wording of this new legislation so not sure.

I can imagine given MTs profile at the moment it would be hard to create any new rules that give a consort power / a formal role, even if in the long term that would be better once MT is no longer in that role. However, in one way I guess it does make sense that the rules for a Regent follow those of who can be lieutenant-representative. Having a difference between who acts formally on behalf of the Head of State as regent and who will actually care and look after an underage Grand Duke / Grand Duchess is maybe no bad thing.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I also think that the regency ruile has something to do with Maria Teresa, but chances that she would become Regent are slim anyway, as Guillaume is well over 18. They only way she would have become Regent would be if there would be something with Henri, but i wonder if then not the Heir would be chosen as Regent given that he is adult

Before July 1, the Constitution stipulated that if the monarch were unable to govern, the same rules of regency would apply as if the monarch were a minor. It also stipulated that these rules would be according to the (Nassau) family pact.

Art. 6. Si à la mort du Grand-Duc Son successeur est mineur, la régence est exercée conformément au pacte de famille.

Art. 7. Si le Grand-Duc se trouve dans l’impossibilité de régner, il est pourvu à la régence comme dans le cas de minorité.​

The rule laid down by the Nassau family pact, since 2012 (but now overridden by the new Constitution), is that the monarch's surviving parent is their regent and their guardian.

Art. 32. In dem Falle, dass der Hauschef mit Hinterlassung unmündiger Kinder versterben sollte (Artikel 24 Absatz 1 Ziffer 2), so verbleibt es bei der Vormundschaft und Regentschaft des verbliebenen Elternteils und im Falle des Versterbens beider Elternteile bei der Vormundschaft und Regentschaft des nach der Sukzessionsordnung nächstverwandten Familienmitglieds.

https://legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/adm/dec/2012/06/11/n1/jo​

So without the recent constitutional reform, Grand Duchess Maria Teresa could have become regent not for her husband, but for her son Guillaume if he became Grand Duke and then became unable to carry out his constitutional duties.

I believe that, under previous rules, the role of lieutenant-representative was already restricted to blood relatives of the Grand Duke, so the novelty is really in the extension of that restriction to the regency.

Yes. The previous version of the Constitution restricted the role of Lieutenant of the Grand Duke to "princes of the blood".

Art. 42. Le Grand-Duc peut Se faire représenter par un Prince du sang, qui aura le titre de Lieutenant du Grand-Duc et résidera dans le Grand-Duché. [...]​

Having a difference between who acts formally on behalf of the Head of State as regent and who will actually care and look after an underage Grand Duke / Grand Duchess is maybe no bad thing.

The new constitution remains silent about the guardianship of an underage monarch, so I assume that will still be governed by the family pact (i.e., guardianship will fall to the monarch's surviving parent).

Would it no be possible for a similar thing as happened in the UK to happen in Luxembourg and a specific act /legislation be created to make Stephanie regent if it was thought the best thing to do at the time? I haven't seen the exact wording of this new legislation so not sure.

The new and older versions of the Constitution can be found on Legilux.

The Constitution cannot be preempted by an ordinary act of parliament. Amending the Constitution would require at least one two-thirds supermajority vote of Parliament, and in some cases a referendum (see article 131).

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Article 56

(1)The office of Head of State is hereditary in the direct descendants of His Royal Highness Adolphe, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, Duke of Nassau, in order of primogeniture and representation. Only children born of a marriage have the right to succeed.

(2)The person entitled to succeed may renounce it. This waiver takes the form of a written act which is irrevocable and whose effects apply only to the author.

When exceptional circumstances so require, the Chamber of Deputies may exclude one or more persons from the order of succession by a law adopted by a qualified majority.

(3) In the absence of a successor, the Chamber of Deputies shall meet no later than thirty days of the death or abdication of the Grand Duke with a view to appointing a new Head of State. The decision shall be adopted by qualified majority.

(4) The abdication of the Grand Duke requires the form of a written act which is irrevocable.


Article 132

The provisions of Article 56 shall for the first time apply to the descendants of His Royal Highness Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, Duke of Nassau.

An alternative explanation might be that the old remains continue to apply for other descendants, but these rules apply to Henri's descendants.

I wonder if that may have been the intent of the legislators, but if so, I would say their intent was not effected.

Nothing in the new Constitution refers to semi-Salic/male-preference succession, or to older succession rules in general, even in the transitional provision (article 132).

So, what legal instrument could provide a basis for applying semi-Salic male-preference rules to favor (for example) Henri's brother Guillaume over his sister Marie-Astrid?

This would be consistent with the previous decision to start applying equal primogeniture to his descendants only.

We don't know whether Grand Duke Henri's decisions in 2010-11 were intended to apply equal primogeniture to his descendants only, or to apply equal primogeniture to the entire line of succession (with the exception of his line remaining ahead of his older sister Marie-Astrid, naturally). The grand-ducal court refused to clarify Henri's intent when Luxarazzi made inquiries. (A note to readers: the linked Luxarazzi post mistakenly implies the line of succession used to be male-only, which was not true, as discussed above.)

I assume you mean 56 to 61.

I did, thank you! It has now been corrected.

In bold those who were in line until Friday (note: also Henri's cousin prince Charles and his two sons were (and are?) in line to the throne).

Did you mean Grand Duke Henri's cousin Prince Robert? Robert married without the consent of then Grand Duke Jean, which is evident because Robert's wife and children did not become Princesses and Princes until Henri elevated them in 2004. Therefore, according to the old house rules, his children were morganatic and were not in line to inherit.

Thank you for your summary and thoughts. It seems a bit curious to me that the new constitution has removed any way of limiting the size of the Royal house that was available in the Nassau House Law and thereby goes against the trend we see in most other monarchies of Europe.

You're very welcome and I fully agree. It harkens back to an old-fashioned outlook of the throne as a hereditary right which should not be denied outside of "exceptional circumstances", as it says in the new article 56 (2). This is pure speculation, but I wonder if the breakdown in trust between the grand-ducal couple and the government meant legislators no longer trusted Grand Duke Henri to make decisions (about marriage approvals and renunciations) impacting the line of succession.

 

[Prinsara]

Has there been any reissued Line of Succession to know who was and was not affected?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Has there been any reissued Line of Succession to know who was and was not affected?

What do you mean by "who was and was not affected"?

 

[Prinsara]

What do you mean by "who was and was not affected"?

Noah, who would seem to now be in line, for one. Anyone else who was not in line and now is. Anyone who had their place changed. I assume there is no one who was removed.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Noah, who would seem to now be in line, for one. Anyone else who was not in line and now is. Anyone who had their place changed. I assume there is no one who was removed.

If the line of succession to the throne has been reduced to Grand Duke Henri's descendants, which is one plausible reading of Article 132 (see the translation above), then quite a few people have been removed.

But no, the grand-ducal court website does not list the line of succession and has not been updated to reflect last week's constitutional reforms impacting succession, regency, finances, etc.

 

[Fence Sitter]

There seems to be some confusion as to why first the 2012 amendment to the Nassau family pact and now Article 132 state that the change (to equal primogeniture) first applies to the descendants of GD Henri.


In my opinion the reason is simple. Both according to the family pact then and according to the constitution now the throne belongs to the descendants of GD Adolphe. So it was absolutely necessary, by one means or another, to make clear that the new rules have no retroactive effect, and the abdication of Jean I in favour of his eldest son (instead of his eldest child / eldest daughter) still remains legal without any doubt.


Article 132 states that Article 56 "shall for the first time apply" to the descendants of GD Henri. Now some people seem to assume that this "shall for the first time apply" means that for others in the line of succession, the old semi-salic law would still apply. That would be illogical, in my opinion. It would mean, that a new constitution would cease to apply in favour of an old, already obsolete family pact, not because the constitution says so, but because the "shall for the first time apply to the descendants of His Royal Highness Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, Duke of Nassau. " in Article 132 is interpreted to mean "shall for the first time apply to the descendants of His Royal Highness Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, Duke of Nassau, and after the extinction of that line, not apply at all".



Article 132 states: "shall for the first time apply". It would have been easy to formulate the article "The provisions of Article 56 shall only apply to the descendants of His Royal Highness Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, Duke of Nassau", had that really been the intended effect.


This still leaves one important question unanswered, however. Should Article 132 be understood so that the line of Marie-Astrid was sidelined for all time to come as a result of Henri's accession, or is she together with her descendants now in line after Henri's children and grandchildren? The Nassau family pact applied to people who were considered part of the house of Nassau, so not necessary a princess who due to her marriage had become a memer of the Imperial house of Austria, if the old logic from the times of Holy Roman empire is followed. But that line of argument is now obsolete as well, since the new constitution doesn't limit the succession rights to the "House of Nassau" but to the descendants of GD Adolphe.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I thought Louis renounced his rights specifically so he would not have one child in the line of succession and one child ineligible?

I am fairly certain that was just uninformed speculation by people who were unaware that Luxembourg's Civil Code (just like that of Monaco, which for some reason many more people seem to be aware of) legitimates children upon the subsequent marriage of their parents.

The old and new Nassau house laws (at least those which are published online) did not exclude children who were born out of wedlock and legitimated by their parents' subsequent marriage, as far as I can tell. (Edited to correct: The original wording of the 1907 bylaw did require birth from a marriage in conformity with the house rules, but this wording was removed in the 2012 revision.)

According to Luxarazzi, the publicly given reason for Louis's renunciation was to make it easier to pursue his business career. He apparently followed the example of his uncle Jean, who also officially renounced the throne for the sake of his business career, coincidentally not long after having a child out of wedlock.

To add to this post: The popular claim that Prince Louis renounced the succession rights of his descendants also appears to be false. According to Luxarazzi, the text of his renunciation was never published, but news and forum posts dating from 2006 refer only to Louis renouncing his own rights.

The claim that he also renounced for his descendants seems to be a later invention. I imagine it resulted from foreign royal watchers being ignorant of the fact that Louis marrying without the formal consent of Grand Duke Henri automatically made his marriage morganatic under the House Laws, so that his children had no rights to the throne to be renounced (given that the succession to the throne was governed by the House Laws at the time).

 

[Tatiana Maria]

There seems to be some confusion as to why first the 2012 amendment to the Nassau family pact and now Article 132 state that the change (to equal primogeniture) first applies to the descendants of GD Henri.


In my opinion the reason is simple. Both according to the family pact then and according to the constitution now the throne belongs to the descendants of GD Adolphe. So it was absolutely necessary, by one means or another, to make clear that the new rules have no retroactive effect, and the abdication of Jean I in favour of his eldest son (instead of his eldest child / eldest daughter) still remains legal without any doubt.


Article 132 states that Article 56 "shall for the first time apply" to the descendants of GD Henri. Now some people seem to assume that this "shall for the first time apply" means that for others in the line of succession, the old semi-salic law would still apply. That would be illogical, in my opinion. It would mean, that a new constitution would cease to apply in favour of an old, already obsolete family pact, not because the constitution says so, but because the "shall for the first time apply to the descendants of His Royal Highness Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, Duke of Nassau. " in Article 132 is interpreted to mean "shall for the first time apply to the descendants of His Royal Highness Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, Duke of Nassau, and after the extinction of that line, not apply at all".



Article 132 states: "shall for the first time apply". It would have been easy to formulate the article "The provisions of Article 56 shall only apply to the descendants of His Royal Highness Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, Duke of Nassau", had that really been the intended effect.

Well said, and I agree with you completely. My question to the many people who claim that male-preference or even male-only succession applies to family members not descended from Grand Duke Henri is: Where is that written in law? Since 2023, neither the Constitution nor the Family Pact contain even a single mention of male-preference (or male-only) succession.


Fence Sitter, you are also right on the lawmakers' intentions for the "shall for the first time apply" clause. According to the preparatory work for the 2023 constitutional reform, the "for the first time" transitory provision is simply meant to ensure that the rules of succession will not apply retroactively (if they were, Henri would be retroactively dethroned in favor of his older sister Marie-Astrid):

Afin de lever toute ambiguïté juridique, il est précisé que les règles de succession au trône décrites à l’article 44 de la proposition de révision ne s’appliqueront pas rétroactivement, mais pour la première fois à la succession du Grand-Duc Henri.

(In order to remove all juridical ambiguity, it is stipulated that the rules of succession to the throne described in article 44 of the reform proposition will not apply retroactively, but for the first time to the succession to Grand Duke Henri.)

https://wdocs-pub.chd.lu/docs/exped/0114/122/229221.pdf
​

This still leaves one important question unanswered, however. Should Article 132 be understood so that the line of Marie-Astrid was sidelined for all time to come as a result of Henri's accession, or is she together with her descendants now in line after Henri's children and grandchildren? The Nassau family pact applied to people who were considered part of the house of Nassau, so not necessary a princess who due to her marriage had become a memer of the Imperial house of Austria, if the old logic from the times of Holy Roman empire is followed. But that line of argument is now obsolete as well, since the new constitution doesn't limit the succession rights to the "House of Nassau" but to the descendants of GD Adolphe.

In light of the above quote, my guess is that the intent of the lawmakers was to include all branches descending from Grand Duke Adolphe, even though I personally find that to be a very poor choice, since the vast majority of them have no meaningful connection to Luxembourg.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Another reform implemented by the 2023 revision of the Constitution is that Luxembourg has abandoned the principle of "the King is dead, long live the King", wherein the new monarch succeeds instantaneously upon the death or abdication of the old monarch.

Instead, Luxembourg has now adopted the Belgian system wherein, upon the old monarch's death or abdication, there is an interregnum during which the Government exercises the powers of the Head of State until the new monarch is sworn in.

Art. 61.

À partir du décès du Grand-Duc, de son abdication ou du constat de son impossibilité de remplir ses attributions constitutionnelles, jusqu’à la prestation de serment du successeur, la fonction de Chef de l’État est exercée par le Gouvernement. Il en est de même en cas de décès ou de démission du Régent.​

Legilux

legilux.public.lu

 

[Fence Sitter]

Thank you for this piece of legal information. I find it frankly a bit astonishing that this Belgian peculiarity has found itself to Luxembourg legislation, though of course any country is always inclined to look at their neighbours for inspiration.

Regarding your postings from February, that I for some reason only noticed now:

- I agree with your interpretation about the succession rights of Louis and Tessy's children before the constitutional reform. The line of succession was rather limited during that era anyway, as some other marriages had also been considered morganatic.
- Including all descendants of GD Adolphe in the line of succession is indeed wildly excessive. I guess the idea was just to play safe, in the knowledge that none of the more distant relatives will ever inherit the throne, unless something very dramatic happens. In my opinion it would however been easier to limit the succession law to the descendants of GD Henri or his father, with an additional provision. This addition could have been something like "Should it be likely that the throne would be left vacant due to lack of heirs, the sovereign can, in cooperation with the parliament, appoint a successor from among other descendants of Grand Duke Adolphe."

 

[Mbruno]

I agree. Bartholomew Townsend must be aware that his grandmother was a Princess of Luxembourg. But he is probably unaware that he himself is legally a member of the Grand-Ducal Family of Luxembourg. And he is very, very likely unaware that there is a house law which legally requires his potential marital children to carry his surname.

Bartholomew's mother Yolande uses the name Mrs. Hugo Townsend. If she has become a British citizen and legally changed from her father's surname "de Ligne" to her husband's surname "Townsend", as most British married women do, then she is violating the Luxembourg house law, which mandates her to carry her father's surname. (Among citizens of Luxembourg, women traditionally carry their father's legal surname for life, even if they are known by their husbands' surnames after marriage.) Which is another illustration of why that house law is so poorly conceived.

Sorry, I haven't followed the discussion but what are the consequences of violating the House Law ? (...)

At most, I imagine that violating the House Law could mean loss of dynastic rights in Luxembourg, but, as far as I understand, Princess Yolande and her children already have no succession rights, so what dynastic rights could they lose by using the family name Townsend in England?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

At most, I imagine that violating the House Law could mean loss of dynastic rights in Luxembourg, but, as far as I understand, Princess Yolande and her children already have no succession rights, so what dynastic rights could they lose by using the family name Townsend in England?

Succession rights to the Luxembourg throne are, since 1 July 2023, governed by the Constitution of the Grand Duchy. All marital-born descendants of Grand Duke Adolph have a right to the throne, unless they personally renounce it. So the Townsends are in line to the Luxembourg throne (which I also find ridiculous, but that is what the Parliament of Luxembourg decided).

Art. 56.

(1) La fonction de Chef de l’État est héréditaire dans la descendance directe de Son Altesse Royale Adolphe, Grand-Duc de Luxembourg, Duc de Nassau, par ordre de primogéniture et par représentation. Seuls les enfants nés d’un mariage ont le droit de succéder.

(2) La personne en droit de succéder peut y renoncer. Cette renonciation intervient sous forme d’un acte écrit qui est irrévocable et dont les effets ne s’appliquent qu’à l’auteur.

[...]​

 

[meeralakshmi]

As far as I can tell, there are no real consequences to violating this particular house law. Which is another reason I think it is presumptuous: What is the point of enacting a law which is realistically impossible to enforce?



Succession rights to the Luxembourg throne are, since 1 July 2023, governed by the Constitution of the Grand Duchy. All marital-born descendants of Grand Duke Adolph have a right to the throne, unless they personally renounce it. So the Townsends are in line to the Luxembourg throne (which I also find ridiculous, but that is what the Parliament of Luxembourg decided).

Art. 56.​

​

(1) La fonction de Chef de l’État est héréditaire dans la descendance directe de Son Altesse Royale Adolphe, Grand-Duc de Luxembourg, Duc de Nassau, par ordre de primogéniture et par représentation. Seuls les enfants nés d’un mariage ont le droit de succéder.​

​

(2) La personne en droit de succéder peut y renoncer. Cette renonciation intervient sous forme d’un acte écrit qui est irrévocable et dont les effets ne s’appliquent qu’à l’auteur.​

​

[...]​

I don’t believe the succession law of 2011 is retroactive as sources state that the last person in line to the throne is Prince Robert’s son Prince Alexandre. The only women in the line of succession are the descendants of Henri (so Amalia, Alexandra, and Victoire).

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I don’t believe the succession law of 2011 is retroactive as sources state that the last person in line to the throne is Prince Robert’s son Prince Alexandre. The only women in the line of succession are the descendants of Henri (so Amalia, Alexandra, and Victoire).

Those people are wrong. Nothing in the Constitution (which, since 2023, governs the succession to the throne) supports their interpretation.

You can read the Constitution (in French) on Legilux, the official portal of Luxembourg legislation.

Legilux

legilux.public.lu

If you prefer, @Somebody posted an unofficial translation of the Constitution's succession law here:

Luxembourg Succession

If at some point it becomes obviously clear that Amalia will be the future grand duchess, I could see the grand duke (whether it be the current one or Guillaume) granting her and her younger brother the titles of prince(ss) of Luxembourg; for now, they are 'just' prince(ss) of Nassau. If...

www.theroyalforums.com

Article 56.

(1)The office of Head of State is hereditary in the direct descendants of His Royal Highness Adolphe, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, Duke of Nassau, in order of primogeniture and representation. Only children born of a marriage have the right to succeed.

(2)The person entitled to succeed may renounce it. This waiver takes the form of a written act which is irrevocable and whose effects apply only to the author.

When exceptional circumstances so require, the Chamber of Deputies may exclude one or more persons from the order of succession by a law adopted by a qualified majority.

(3) In the absence of a successor, the Chamber of Deputies shall meet no later than thirty days of the death or abdication of the Grand Duke with a view to appointing a new Head of State. The decision shall be adopted by qualified majority.

(4) The abdication of the Grand Duke requires the form of a written act which is irrevocable.

Article 132.

The provisions of Article 56 shall for the first time apply to the descendants of His Royal Highness Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, Duke of Nassau.​

 

[Mbruno]

Those people are wrong. Nothing in the Constitution (which, since 2023, governs the succession to the throne) supports their interpretation.

You can read the Constitution (in French) on Legilux, the official portal of Luxembourg legislation.

Legilux

legilux.public.lu

If you prefer, @Somebody posted an unofficial translation of the Constitution's succession law here:

Luxembourg Succession

If at some point it becomes obviously clear that Amalia will be the future grand duchess, I could see the grand duke (whether it be the current one or Guillaume) granting her and her younger brother the titles of prince(ss) of Luxembourg; for now, they are 'just' prince(ss) of Nassau. If...

www.theroyalforums.com

Article 56.​

​

(1)The office of Head of State is hereditary in the direct descendants of His Royal Highness Adolphe, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, Duke of Nassau, in order of primogeniture and representation. Only children born of a marriage have the right to succeed.​

​

(2)The person entitled to succeed may renounce it. This waiver takes the form of a written act which is irrevocable and whose effects apply only to the author.​

​

When exceptional circumstances so require, the Chamber of Deputies may exclude one or more persons from the order of succession by a law adopted by a qualified majority.​

​

(3) In the absence of a successor, the Chamber of Deputies shall meet no later than thirty days of the death or abdication of the Grand Duke with a view to appointing a new Head of State. The decision shall be adopted by qualified majority.​

​

(4) The abdication of the Grand Duke requires the form of a written act which is irrevocable.​

​

Article 132.​

​

The provisions of Article 56 shall for the first time apply to the descendants of His Royal Highness Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, Duke of Nassau.​

Those people are wrong. Nothing in the Constitution (which, since 2023, governs the succession to the throne) supports their interpretation.

You can read the Constitution (in French) on Legilux, the official portal of Luxembourg legislation.

Legilux

legilux.public.lu

If you prefer, @Somebody posted an unofficial translation of the Constitution's succession law here:

Luxembourg Succession

If at some point it becomes obviously clear that Amalia will be the future grand duchess, I could see the grand duke (whether it be the current one or Guillaume) granting her and her younger brother the titles of prince(ss) of Luxembourg; for now, they are 'just' prince(ss) of Nassau. If...

www.theroyalforums.com

Article 56.​

​

(1)The office of Head of State is hereditary in the direct descendants of His Royal Highness Adolphe, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, Duke of Nassau, in order of primogeniture and representation. Only children born of a marriage have the right to succeed.​

​

(2)The person entitled to succeed may renounce it. This waiver takes the form of a written act which is irrevocable and whose effects apply only to the author.​

​

When exceptional circumstances so require, the Chamber of Deputies may exclude one or more persons from the order of succession by a law adopted by a qualified majority.​

​

(3) In the absence of a successor, the Chamber of Deputies shall meet no later than thirty days of the death or abdication of the Grand Duke with a view to appointing a new Head of State. The decision shall be adopted by qualified majority.​

​

(4) The abdication of the Grand Duke requires the form of a written act which is irrevocable.​

​

Article 132.​

​

The provisions of Article 56 shall for the first time apply to the descendants of His Royal Highness Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, Duke of Nassau.​

I am not really familiar with Luxembourgish succession rules, but doesn't Article 132 support Meeralakshmi's interpretation?

 

[meeralakshmi]

Those people are wrong. Nothing in the Constitution (which, since 2023, governs the succession to the throne) supports their interpretation.

You can read the Constitution (in French) on Legilux, the official portal of Luxembourg legislation.

Legilux

legilux.public.lu

If you prefer, @Somebody posted an unofficial translation of the Constitution's succession law here:

Luxembourg Succession

If at some point it becomes obviously clear that Amalia will be the future grand duchess, I could see the grand duke (whether it be the current one or Guillaume) granting her and her younger brother the titles of prince(ss) of Luxembourg; for now, they are 'just' prince(ss) of Nassau. If...

www.theroyalforums.com

Article 56.​

​

(1)The office of Head of State is hereditary in the direct descendants of His Royal Highness Adolphe, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, Duke of Nassau, in order of primogeniture and representation. Only children born of a marriage have the right to succeed.​

​

(2)The person entitled to succeed may renounce it. This waiver takes the form of a written act which is irrevocable and whose effects apply only to the author.​

​

When exceptional circumstances so require, the Chamber of Deputies may exclude one or more persons from the order of succession by a law adopted by a qualified majority.​

​

(3) In the absence of a successor, the Chamber of Deputies shall meet no later than thirty days of the death or abdication of the Grand Duke with a view to appointing a new Head of State. The decision shall be adopted by qualified majority.​

​

(4) The abdication of the Grand Duke requires the form of a written act which is irrevocable.​

​

Article 132.​

​

The provisions of Article 56 shall for the first time apply to the descendants of His Royal Highness Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, Duke of Nassau.​

From Luxembourg’s monarchy’s website: The constitutional monarchy | Cour grand-ducale

“On 20 June 2011, by order of Grand Duke Henri, the Marshal of the Court announced a new internal regulation introducing absolute primogeniture to the order of succession within the House of Luxembourg-Nassau. This guarantees equality between men and women in terms of succession to the Throne. This new order of succession first applies to the descendants of Grand Duke Henri.”

I am not really familiar with Luxembourgish succession rules, but doesn't Article 132 support Meeralakshmi's interpretation?

Correct, source cited in the message below yours.

I am not really familiar with Luxembourgish succession rules, but doesn't Article 132 support Meeralakshmi's interpretation?

Article 132.

The provisions of Article 56 shall for the first time apply to the descendants of His Royal Highness Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, Duke of Nassau.

I also didn’t even catch this part when reading her message lol. The line of succession is:

1. Guillaume, Hereditary Grand Duke of Luxembourg
2. Prince Charles of Luxembourg
3. Prince François of Luxembourg
4. Prince Félix of Luxembourg
5. Princess Amalia of Nassau
6. Prince Liam of Nassau
7. Prince Balthazar of Nassau
8. Princess Alexandra of Luxembourg
9. Victoire Bagory
10. Prince Sébastien of Luxembourg
11. Prince Guillaume of Luxembourg
12. Prince Paul-Louis of Nassau
13. Prince Léopold of Nassau
14. Prince Jean of Nassau
15. Prince Robert of Luxembourg
16. Prince Alexandre of Nassau

 

[Tatiana Maria]

From Luxembourg’s monarchy’s website: The constitutional monarchy | Cour grand-ducale

“On 20 June 2011, by order of Grand Duke Henri, the Marshal of the Court announced a new internal regulation introducing absolute primogeniture to the order of succession within the House of Luxembourg-Nassau. This guarantees equality between men and women in terms of succession to the Throne. This new order of succession first applies to the descendants of Grand Duke Henri.”

Yes, that's correct. But bear in mind that since the constitutional reform of July 1, 2023, Grand Duke Henri no longer has any authority over the line of succession to the throne - it is the Constitution which regulates that now. So Henri's 2011 and 2012 updates to the house law are no longer of any relevance (though obviously Parliament chose to continue using absolute primogeniture). Unfortunately, the Grand Ducal website hasn't fully updated to reflect that.

Both the 2011-2012 house laws and the 2023 constitutional transitory provision say that the succession laws apply "for the first time" to Henri's descendants. But that does not mean e.g. Alexandre is in line and his sister Charlotte is not. Please read the following posts written by @Fence Sitter and me, and see what you think.

Luxembourg Succession

I thought Louis renounced his rights specifically so he would not have one child in the line of succession and one child ineligible? I realize the revision was done with more than one family in mind, but if Noah really has been reinstated, it seems like a bit of a shame, somehow.

www.theroyalforums.com

Luxembourg Succession

I thought Louis renounced his rights specifically so he would not have one child in the line of succession and one child ineligible? I realize the revision was done with more than one family in mind, but if Noah really has been reinstated, it seems like a bit of a shame, somehow.

www.theroyalforums.com

 

[meeralakshmi]

Both the 2011-2012 house laws and the 2023 constitutional transitory provision say that the succession laws apply "for the first time" to Henri's descendants. But that does not mean e.g. Alexandre is in line and his sister Charlotte is not. Please read the following posts written by @Fence Sitter and me, and see what you think.

I’d have to disagree, I think it means that the new law only applies to the descendants of Henri. If his line were to go extinct as Fence Sitter brought up absolute primogeniture would apply to the new line and any future lines (that’s what I take “for the first time” to mean).

 

[Tatiana Maria]

If his line were to go extinct as Fence Sitter brought up absolute primogeniture would apply to the new line and any future lines (that’s what I take “for the first time” to mean).

That is my interpretation of the Constitution, and I think it is Fence Sitter’s interpretation too. In other words, I think that if Henri and every one of his descendants were to die in a freak accident tomorrow, the next monarch – according to what the Constitution currently says – would be his oldest sister Marie-Astrid.


The reason I say that the popular claim “males outside Henri’s line can inherit, but females outside Henri’s line can’t” is wrong is that there is simply no wording in the Constitution that distinguishes between “males outside Henri’s line” and “females outside Henri’s line”.

Article 56 mentions “the direct descendants of His Royal Highness Adolphe”. Article 132 mentions “the descendants of His Royal Highness Henri”. That is it for mentions of the grand dukes’ descendants in the Constitution.

So, where would the alleged rule that “males outside Henri’s line can inherit, but females outside Henri’s line can’t” come from? It is nowhere in the Constitution, and the Constitution is the highest law of the land.

 

[meeralakshmi]

That is my interpretation of the Constitution, and I think it is Fence Sitter’s interpretation too. In other words, I think that if Henri and every one of his descendants were to die in a freak accident tomorrow, the next monarch – according to what the Constitution currently says – would be his oldest sister Marie-Astrid.


The reason I say that the popular claim “males outside Henri’s line can inherit, but females outside Henri’s line can’t” is wrong is that there is simply no wording in the Constitution that distinguishes between “males outside Henri’s line” and “females outside Henri’s line”.

Article 56 mentions “the direct descendants of His Royal Highness Adolphe”. Article 132 mentions “the descendants of His Royal Highness Henri”. That is it for mentions of the grand dukes’ descendants in the Constitution.

So, where would the alleged rule that “males outside Henri’s line can inherit, but females outside Henri’s line can’t” come from? It is nowhere in the Constitution, and the Constitution is the highest law of the land.

I believe the constitution states that absolute primogeniture applies to Henri’s descendants alone and the previous semi-Salic succession applies to everyone else because they don’t want to retroactively change the line of succession.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I believe the constitution states that absolute primogeniture applies to Henri’s descendants alone and the previous semi-Salic succession applies to everyone else

But the Constitution doesn't state that the historical semi-Salic succession rules apply to everyone else. Like you said, legislators need to state (or at least imply) what they want to happen. If the legislators wanted the historical semi-Salic order of succession to apply to most branches of the family, they would have needed to state or imply that somewhere.

But the Constitution never mentions “the previous law”, “the previous order of succession”, “semi-Salic succession”, “male-preference succession”, or any other wording that could be taken as referring to the historical succession rules.

There’s no need to take my word on that – everyone is welcome to read the entire Constitution for themselves. (If you or anyone else do find something I missed, please let me know!)

Legilux

legilux.public.lu

because they don’t want to retroactively change the line of succession.

That’s exactly it According to the legislators, they inserted “for the first time” to ensure that Henri’s succession in 2000 would not be retroactively voided, since Henri has an older sister. They did not want the Constitution to apply to the past; they wanted it to apply to the future.

As they explained, by “the first time” they meant that the rules apply to future successions, starting with the succession to Henri.

Afin de lever toute ambiguïté juridique, il est précisé que les règles de succession au trône décrites à l’article 44 de la proposition de révision ne s’appliqueront pas rétroactivement, mais pour la première fois à la succession du Grand-Duc Henri.​

Translation:

In order to remove any legal ambiguity, it is specified that the rules of succession to the throne described in article 44 of the proposed revision will not apply retroactively, but for the first time to the succession to Grand Duke Henri.​

https://wdocs-pub.chd.lu/docs/exped/0114/122/229221.pdf

“For the first time to the succession to Grand Duke Henri” means that the Constitution’s rules will apply to determine who will succeed Grand Duke Henri as the next monarch.

(That is why I think, if all Henri’s descendants dropped dead tomorrow, it would be Marie-Astrid and not Guillaume who would succeed him when he abdicates.)

 

[Somebody]

Several posts in this thread have been moved to the 'Titles, Styles and Names of the Grand Ducal Family'-thread. This thread will remain dedicated to the discussion of succession issues. The title of this thread has been adjusted accordingly.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

But bear in mind that since the constitutional reform of July 1, 2023, Grand Duke Henri no longer has any authority over the line of succession to the throne - it is the Constitution which regulates that now. So Henri's 2011 and 2012 updates to the house law are no longer of any relevance (though obviously Parliament chose to continue using absolute primogeniture). Unfortunately, the Grand Ducal website hasn't fully updated to reflect that.

The page seems to have been updated now to correct outdated information.

La Monarchie constitutionnelle | Cour grand-ducale

monarchie.lu

 

[Marengo]

They seemed to have bypassed 1890 as a key year, where Luxembourg went from one to the other branch of Nassau. It may have respected the family pact, but a change of the constitution in Wilhelmina's favour would have been a great possibility and was initially the preferred option of King/ Grand Duke Willem III. Supposedly Queen/ Grand Duchess Emma, whose mother was a Nassau(-Weilburg) was fond of her Nassau uncle and convinced her husband to respect the treaty, perhaps hinted by her own relatives to do so.

It was an elegant sollution, the Dutch ministers were relieved, as the location of Luxembourg could drag the country in a European conflict [as it would have done in WWI]. And at the same time the senior Nassau branch became a reigning family again, and the then Grand Duke make the wise decision to raise his children in the catholic faith, respecting the local religion over the one of his house and himself.

I don't think a personal union would have survived until now and as Wilhelmina had only one child, handing it to a younger one would also not have been possible.